DOCSLIB.ORG

Did AT&T, Verizon, Centurylink & The

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Did AT&T, Verizon, Centurylink & The Did AT&T, Verizon, CenturyLink & the FCC Intentionally Make the Wired Utility Networks Look Unprofitable—Overcharging America at Least $½ Trillion? Did They Create America’s Digital Divide? Bruce Kushnick, Principal Analyst Tom Allibone Chuck Sherwood Kenneth Levy, Esq. David Bergmann, Esq. Paul Hartman Fred Goldstein W. Scott McCollough, Esq. David Schofield RELEASE DATE: AUGUST 27th, 2018 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS “DIGITAL DIVIDE BY DESIGN”: 16 REPORTS TO DOCUMENT THE FINDINGS. PREVIOUS REPORTS: FIXING TELECOM SERIES, 2010-2018 INVESTIGATE NOW: WE ARE AT THE TIPPING POINT OF END GAME. A Frozen FCC Accounting Formula Set to the Year 2000: Renewed till 2033 . Verizon New York Was Overcharged $3.7 Billion Using these Rules: $53 Billion Nationwide, in Just 2017. The Freeze Made Local Service Unprofitable and Created Multiple Harms. National Harms Due to Federal Manipulated FCC Rules . All of these maneuvers made rural areas in every state appear unprofitable. Why Is this Critical Now? The Deck has been Stacked in Multiple Ways. This is Regulatory Capture 101. THREE IMPORTANT FACTS . FACT 1: Verizon, AT&T and Centurylink Still Control and are America’s State Telecommunications Utilities. FACT 2: Verizon’s Fiber to the Home, “FTTP” Is Part of the State Utility and the Existing Telecommunications Networks. FACT 3: Customers Paid Multiple Times for the Replacement of the Copper Wires with Fiber. THE PLOT: SHUT DOWN THE ACCOUNTING BUT KEEP THE “FREEZE”. 2004-2008 Major Push to Get Rid of All Burdensome Accounting Rules . “Forbearance” A License to Steal. Commissioner Brendan Carr was one of the Attorneys for Verizon in 2007 . The Question of Intent . They Tried to Erase Their Tracks . Fast Forward: A Decade of Deregulation of the Monopoly . Keep the Freeze in Place for Another 15 Years, Until 2033 . Timeline to Keep the Networks Unprofitable . An Eerie Resemblance to the General Motors Streetcar Conspiracy EXCERPT FROM REPORT 4: “THE BOOK OF VIOLATIONS” 1) They Had to Know: They Are Smart People. 2) Violations of the Forbearance Petitions on Multiple Fronts. 3) Verizon has Claimed There Are No Cross-Subsidies. 2 4) Claiming There Are No Financial Advantages to Their Own Subsidiaries. 5) Direct Contradiction: Verizon New York Data. 6) Prices Are No Longer Just & Reasonable. 7) Verizon NY had Multiple Rate Increases Directly Tied to the Artificial Losses. LET’S GO OVER A FEW POINTS WHY DID THEY DO IT? A LITANY OF OTHER REASONS . Shut Off the Copper: Force Customers onto Wireless . Tax Benefits, Cross-Subsidizing All Other Businesses . Control Competition and Play with Public Policies . Vertically Integrate the Wired Business, Wireless and Adtech. WHY DO IT? IT MAKES THEM MORE MONEY. AT&T’s Use of “Unprofitable” Areas – More Money for Wireless and Government Subsidies. Verizon’s Statements to Investors THERE ARE MANY QUESTIONS 3 DIGITAL DIVIDE BY DESIGN: 16 REPORTS DOCUMENTING THE FINDINGS1 RELEASED: . REPORT 1: Did AT&T, Verizon, CenturyLink & the FCC Intentionally Make the Wired Utility Networks Look Unprofitable—Overcharging America at Least $½ Trillion? Did They Create the Digital Divide? . REPORT 2: Verizon New York 2017 Annual Report: An Analysis of Cross- Subsidies and Customer Overcharging . REPORT 3: FILED: Bell Access Line Accounting Manipulation 1984-2018 . REPORT 4: AT&T, CenturyLink & Verizon’s Motto: The Big Telco Cook Book for Fun and Profit of the Shareholders . REPORT 5. CEO to Investor Transcripts: The AT&T-Verizon-FCC Wireline Bait-and-Switch with Wireless: Because it Makes the Companies More Money. TO BE RELEASED . REPORT 6: The Book of Numbers . REPORT 7: The Book of Violations . REPORT 8: Wireline state utilities have been overcharged billions to fund the wireless network build outs. REPORT 9: AT&T California state utility phone service went up 138% from 2008-2016. Ancillary services went up 60%-525%. REPORT 10: Verizon New Jersey Local Service Increases, 1982-2014 — 440% . REPORT 11: Verizon New York Basic Phone Service Went Up Over 730% Since 1980. Since 2005, customers were Overcharged over $2,500.00 per line. REPORT 12: NJ Ratepayer Advocate’s analysis of Verizon NJ’s failure to deploy fiber optics 1993-1997 and the harms of “Price Caps” and “Incentive” regulations. REPORT 13: A Case Study: Verizon NJ Opportunity $15 Billion Failure . REPORT 14: Case Study: Verizon Massachusetts: A Broadband Failure . REPORT 15: Case Study: AT&T California’s Fiber Optic Failure . REPORT 16: The Verizon New York Settlement July, 2018 1 https://newnetworks.com/digitaldividebydesign/ 4 PREVIOUS REPORTS: FIXING TELECOM SERIES, 2010-2018 New Networks Institute and the IRREGULATORS – FCC and State Filings. VERIZON NEW YORK: EXAMINING THE FINANCIAL SHELL GAME th Verizon NY Settlement Story, July 14 , 2018 th NY PSC Proposed Settlement April 16 , 2018. NNI & IRREGULATOR FILINGs, 2017 REPORTS AND FILINGS, 2010- Verizon’s State-Based Financial Issues & Tax Losses: The Destruction of America’s Telecommunications Utilities In 2010, NNI started an investigation of the financial books of five Verizon’s state-based utilities, Published in 2012 Verizon Wireless and the Other Verizon Affiliate Companies Are Harming Verizon New York’s (The State-based Utility) Customers & the State. Examining Verizon NY’s Phone Rate Increases, Income Tax Benefits, Lack of Network Upgrades, Service Quality and Pushing Wireless Deployment Verizon Wireless and the Other Verizon Affiliate Companies Are Harming Verizon New York’s (The State-based Utility) Customers & the State. In September 2013, our next report focused on Verizon New York and was the centerpiece of a filing by Common Cause, Consumer Union, CWA, and the Fire Island Association, which called for an investigation of Verizon’s financials and business practices, Alexander Goldman, Esq. co-authored the report. “It’s All Interconnected”, published, May 2014, Public Utility Law Project, (PULP). It relied on unexamined data from Verizon New York using different Verizon supplied financials books. FIXING TELECOM REPORTS: 2015- Report 1: Executive Summary: Verizon’s Manipulated Financial Accounting & the FCC’s Big “Freeze” Report 2: Full Data Report Report 3: SPECIAL REPORT How Municipalities and the States can Fund Fiber Optic Wireline and Wireless Broadband Networks. REPORT 4: Data Report Verizon’s Wireline Networks Diverted Capex for Wireless Instead of Wiring Municipalities, and Charged Local Phone Customers. Report 5: The Hartman Memorandum proves that the FCC’s own cost allocation rules created massive financial cross subsidies. Report 6: The History & Rules of Setting Phone Rates in America Report 7: SUMMARY REPORT: Verizon Massachusetts & Boston: Investigate the Wireless-Wireline Bait-n-Switch, January 17th, 2017 Report 8: Full Report: Verizon NY 2016 Annual Report Analyzed, June 2017. 5 INVESTIGATE NOW: WE ARE AT THE TIPPING POINT OF END GAME. Did Verizon, AT&T, CenturyLink and the FCC deliberately and intentionally make the entire US state-based, telecommunications, wired utility networks appear unprofitable? . Did they overcharge America $½ trillion or more? . Did they create the Digital Divide and has been used to restructure the America’s communications policies to help these companies against the public interest? We have all been told that wired networks are unprofitable and that the companies need to ‘shut down the copper’ and move customers to a 5G wireless service. Moreover, the companies and the FCC claim that there are legacy regulations, obligations and arcane accounting rules that ‘burden’ investment, and are blocking America’s economic growth, jobs and ‘real competition’. FROZEN FCC ACCOUNTING FORMULA SET TO 2000: RENEWED TO 2033 Based on almost a decade of research, analysis and the actual financial annual reports of Verizon New York, we now believe that there is at least another $½ trillion of overcharging that has been created through a financial manipulation of the FCC’s cost accounting rules. As we will discuss, Verizon, AT&T and CenturyLink control the majority of America’s state telecommunications wired utilities, and with the help of the FCC, we now believe that they intentionally made to appear artificially unprofitable since 2000. This has allowed the companies to claim that the rural areas were unprofitable, and also receive billions per state in state and federal grants, high cost funds, universal service support and a host of other perks. At the same time, these ‘unprofits’ were used to raise rates, get changes to state and federal regulations, but also were responsible for a lack of direct competition adding to excess charges for all services. And because the companies used the utilities for their wireless roll outs, they could inflate rates and directly harm customers. Moreover, it also meant that the state utilities were showing billion in losses, resulting in major tax benefits to the companies and harming the state tax base. And, on top of this, the companies can claim that renting to competitors is unprofitable, that having to supply “carrier of last resort” services or even fix broken lines is unprofitable, and that keeping the unions to work on these lines is unprofitable. The current plan, in progress, is to dismantle the state utilities, shut off the copper and hand the remaining copper and fiber optic networks to the wireless company as private property for personal use. And without net neutrality and privacy restrictions, they can vertically integrate the content and services, as well as track you, advertise to you and sell your data and information. And these new lines are not open to competitors and the companies can use contractors instead of having the unions do the work. 6 How It Works The FCC’s cost accounting rules allocates expenses to the different lines of business that all use the same, existing, state utility wired networks. In 2001, with the help of AT&T, Verizon and CenturyLink, the FCC “froze” the rules so that they would reflect the division of expenses for the year 2000, 18 years ago. But, in 2000, Local Service was 65% of the revenues and paid 65% of the expenses.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Call for an Investigation of Verizon New Jersey's Financials
    New Networks STATE OF NEW JERSEY Board of Public Utilities 44 South Clinton Avenue, Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0350 TELECOMMUNICATIONS IN THE MATTER OF VERIZON NEW JERSEY, ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE INC.’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ) OPPORTUNITY NEW JERSEY COMMITMENTS ) DOCKET NO. TO12020155 DISSOLVE THE STIPULATION AGREEMENT IMMEDIATELY. 1) OPRA (OPEN PUBLIC RECORDS ACT) REQUESTS 2) REQUEST FOR A FULL INVESTIGATION OF VERIZON NEW JERSEY FOR FAILURE TO PROPERLY UPGRADE THE STATE–BASED UTILITY PLANT 3) REQUEST FOR A FULL INVESTIGATION OF VERIZON NEW JERSEY’S MASS CROSS-SUBSIDIZATION WITH VERIZON’S AFFILIATES, INCLUDING VERIZON INTERNET, VERIZON BUSINESS, VERIZON LONG DISTANCE, AMONG OTHERS 4) REQUEST FOR A FULL INVESTIGATION OF THE FINANCIAL AND OTHER TIES BETWEEN VERIZON NEW JERSEY AND VERIZON WIRELESS 5) REQUEST FOR A FULL INVESTIGATION: CHARGING CUSTOMERS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF ALL VERIZON’S AFFILIATE COMPANIES’ PRODUCTS AND SERVICES, INCLUDING FIOS CABLE TV, INTERNET, BROADBAND, WIRELESS, AND OTHER LINES OF BUSINESS Submitted by: Bruce Kushnick, New Networks Institute Tom Allibone Director of Audits, Teletruth President, LTC Consulting, a New Jersey firm Alexander Goldman, Law Student, Brooklyn Law School Contacts: [email protected], [email protected], 1 New Networks Statement: New Networks & Teletruth requests that the proposed Stipulation Agreement between Verizon New Jersey and the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (NJBPU) be dissolved immediately, our OPRA requests be upheld, and an investigation start immediately. The State should then require Verizon New Jersey to either wire 100% of their state territory, as required by law, with a fiber optic service capable 45 Mbps in both directions; or start a proceeding to give back the billions collected, including damages to every Verizon customer.
    [Show full text]
  • World's Biggest Challenges
    FINANCIAL AND CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY PERFORMANCE 2012 ANNUAL REPORT THE WORL D’S BIGGEST CH A L L E N GES DESERVE EVEN BIGGER SOLUTIONS. { POWERFUL ANSWERS } FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS $115.8 $33.4 $0.90 $2.20 $2.24 $1.975 $2.030 $110.9 $31.5 $0.85 $2.15 $1.925 $106.6 $29.8 $0.31 CONSOLIDATED CASH FLOWS REPORTED ADJUSTED DIVIDENDS REVENUES FROM OPERATING DILUTED EARNINGS DILUTED EARNINGS DECLARED PER (BILLIONS) ACTIVITIES PER SHARE PER SHARE SHARE (BILLIONS) (NON-GAAP) CORPORATE HIGHLIGHTS • $15.3 billion in free cash flow (non-GAAP) • 8.4% growth in wireless retail service revenue • 4.5% growth in operating revenues • 607,000 FiOS Internet subscriber net additions • 13.2% total shareholder return • 553,000 FiOS Video subscriber net additions • 3.0% annual dividend increase • 17.2% growth in FiOS revenue • 5.9 million wireless retail connection net additions • 6.3% growth in Enterprise Strategic Services revenue • 0.91% wireless retail postpaid churn Note: Prior-period amounts have been reclassified to reflect comparable results. See www.verizon.com/investor for reconciliations to U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) for the non-GAAP financial measures included in this annual report. In keeping with Verizon’s commitment to protect the environment, this report was printed on paper certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). By selecting FSC-certified paper, Verizon is making a difference by supporting responsible forest management practices. Chairman’s LETTER Dear Shareowner, 2012 was a year of accelerating momentum, for Verizon and the communications industry. The revolution in mobile, broadband and cloud networks picked up steam—continuing to disrupt and transform huge sectors of our society, from finance to entertainment to healthcare.
    [Show full text]
  • SMS/800 FUNCTIONS ISSUING CARRIERS Thomas Caldwell Vice
    THE BELL OPERATING COMPANIES TARIFF F.C.C. NO. 1 9th Revised Title Page 2 Cancels 8th Revised Title Page 2 SMS/800 FUNCTIONS ISSUING CARRIERS Thomas Caldwell T Vice President, Marketing & Sales T Verizon Communications Inc. One Verizon Way, 2nd Floor T Basking Ridge, NJ 07920 T For Verizon Delaware Inc. Verizon Maryland Inc. Verizon New England Inc. Verizon New Jersey Inc. Verizon New York Inc. Verizon Pennsylvania Inc. Verizon Virginia Inc. Verizon Washington DC Inc. Verizon West Virginia Inc. Kelly Boggs Manager – Pricing BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. 675 West Peachtree St. N.E., Room 34S91, Atlanta, Georgia 30375 For the States of: Alabama Florida Georgia Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee This page filed under Transmittal No. 29 T The names, titles and address of the tariff's Issuing Officers are located on Title Pages 2 through 4 Issued: May 31, 2006 Effective: June 15, 2006 THE BELL OPERATING COMPANIES TARIFF F.C.C. NO. 1 10th Revised Title Page 4 Cancels 9th Revised Title Page 4 SMS/800 FUNCTIONS ISSUING CARRIERS Patrick Doherty T Director – Access Regulatory T AT&T Inc. T Four SBC Plaza, Room 1921, Dallas, Texas 75202 T For Ameritech Operating Companies Nevada Bell Telephone Company Pacific Bell Telephone Company Southwestern Bell Telephone Company The Southern New England Telephone Company Susan S. Henson T Staff Advocate - Public Policy T on behalf of N Wendy M. Moser N Vice President - Public Policy N Qwest Corporation 1801 California Street, Room 4700, Denver, Colorado 80202 For the States of: Arizona Colorado Idaho Iowa Minnesota Montana Nebraska New Mexico North Dakota Oregon South Dakota Utah Washington Wyoming This page filed under Transmittal No.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court, Appellate Division First Department
    SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION FIRST DEPARTMENT DECEMBER 29, 2009 THE COURT ANNOUNCES THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: Gonzalez, P.J., Nardelli, Catterson, Moskowitz, Renwick, JJ. 332 The People of the State of New York, Ind. 3727/05 Respondent, -against- David Diaz, Defendant-Appellant. David Segal, New York, for appellant. Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Malancha Chanda of counsel), for respondent. Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered February 8, 2006, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender, to a term of 7 years, affirmed. Defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree after 253 packets of crack cocaine worth $3,000 were found in a hidden compartment of a minivan that was driven, but not owned, by defendant. The People prosecuted on a theory of constructive possession. We find that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant knowingly and unlawfully possessed crack cocaine and that the crack cocaine he possessed weighed at least four ounces (see Penal Law § 220.18[1]). Moreover, we find the court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress on grounds of an illegal search. Testimony at the suppression hearing established that on July 21, 2005, Officer Angel Torres of the Manhattan Gang Squad spotted a double-parked minivan, with its engine running, at the corner of W. 152nd Street and Broadway, a known drug-prone area. Torres observed defendant exit the vehicle from the driver's seat to scrape off a Sanitation Department sticker from the vehicle's window with a razor blade.
    [Show full text]
  • Cable Franchise Agreement by and Between the City of New York and Verizon New York Inc
    Cable Franchise Agreement by and between The City of New York and Verizon New York Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS ARTICLE PAGE 1. DEFINITIONS..........................................................................................................4 2. CLOSING; CLOSING CONDITIONS..................................................................10 3. EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERM:.........................................................................11 4. GRANT OF AUTHORITY; LIMITS AND RESERVATIONS ............................11 5. DEPLOYMENT; PROVISION OF CABLE SERVICE ........................................13 6. SYSTEM FACILITIES..........................................................................................18 7. LEADING TECHNOLOGY..................................................................................21 8. PEG SERVICES .....................................................................................................21 9. INET………………… ...........................................................................................26 10. FRANCHISE FEES................................................................................................26 11. REPORTS AND RECORDS..................................................................................27 12. INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION...........................................................31 13. TRANSFER OF FRANCHISE...............................................................................36 14. RENEWAL OF FRANCHISE................................................................................37
    [Show full text]
  • NY PRODUCT GUIDE Local and Joint Tariff Services Verizon New York Inc
    NY PRODUCT GUIDE Local and Joint Tariff Services Verizon New York Inc. Part D Section 5 Original Page 1 LOCAL AND JOINT TARIFF SERVICES A. Discount Pricing Plans (Calling Plans) Description (1) General The following contains summaries of discount plans that are available to subscribers of services offered under this Product Guide. In some cases, variations in the availability or terms of these plans are set forth in a separate paragraph following the summary. Aside from such variations, these summaries are intended for informational purposes only, and subscribers should refer to the detailed terms and conditions for these plans, as set forth in the Product Guide sections cited at the end of each summary. In case of any conflict between the summaries and the full provisions of the plans, as set forth in the relevant Product Guides, the latter shall govern (2) Virtual WATS (a) Virtual WATS is a usage discount pricing plan for outgoing calls made within NY State. Virtual WATS is available for use on existing or new business service exchange lines. The subscriber is billed a monthly charge for a minimum period of usage. Charges for usage beyond the minimum period are then applied based on a tapered schedule, with discounted rates for evening and night usage. (b) This pricing plan applies to intraLATA toll calls in the Poughkeepsie, Albany, Syracuse, Binghamton and Buffalo LATAs and to intraLATA Region-to-Region calls in the NY Metropolitan LATA. (c) Refer to Part C of this Product Guide for additional provisions and rates. (3) Sensible Minute Plan (a) The sensible minute plan is a residence optional calling plan that provides customers with a per minute rate for qualifying intraLATA message toll calls in the Poughkeepsie, Albany, Syracuse, Binghamton and Buffalo LATAs and NY State Independent Local Exchange Carriers', except ALLTEL NY, Inc., Warwick Valley Telephone Company and Citizens Telecommunications of NY, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Amended Interconnection Agreement
    Suzan DeBusk Paiva Associate General Counsel th 900 Race Street, 6 Floor Philadelphia, PA 19107 Tel: (267) 768-6184 [email protected] January 13, 2021 VIA ELECTRONIC FILING Rosemary Chiavetta, Secretary Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Commonwealth Keystone Building 400 North Street, 2nd Floor Harrisburg, PA 17120 RE: Joint Filing of Verizon Pennsylvania LLC and AT&T Corp. for Approval of an Interconnection Agreement Amendment [Reference Docket No. A-310125F7000] Dkt. No. Dear Secretary Chiavetta: For filing and approval by the Commission, enclosed please find the UNE/Resale Forbearance Amendment regarding the above-referenced interconnection agreement between Verizon Pennsylvania LLC and AT&T Corp. (“AT&T”). As evidenced by the cc: below, notice of this filing is being provided to AT&T. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. Very truly yours, Suzan D. Paiva SDP/sau Enclosure Via Email cc: Deborah S. Waldbaum, AT&T Services, Inc. Judith LaGarde, AT&T Corp. Attached Service List SERVICE LIST Tanya J. McCloskey John R. Evans Richard A. Kanaskie Acting Consumer Advocate Office of Small Business Advocate Bureau of Investigation & Enforcement Office of Consumer Advocate 555 Walnut Street, 1st Floor PA Public Utility Commission 555 Walnut Street, 5th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 P.O. Box 3265 Harrisburg, PA 17101-1925 [email protected] Harrisburg, PA 17105-3265 [email protected] [email protected] Office of Special Assistants Bureau of Consumer Services Office of the Attorney General PA Public Utility Commission PA Public
    [Show full text]
  • Verizon New York Inc. Supplement No. 3 Psc Ny No. 10
    VERIZON NEW YORK INC. SUPPLEMENT NO. 3 PSC NY NO. 10--COMMUNICATIONS The effective date of the following tariff pages is hereby postponed from August 20, 2004 to September 24, 2004. PSC NY No. 10--COMMUNICATIONS Section 5 2nd Revised Pages 23, 188 3rd Revised Pages 44, 45, 46, 135 10th Revised Page 118 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Effective August 20, 2004, under authority of the Public Service Commission, State of New York, Special Permission Order No. T&T , dated . Issued: July 27, 2004 Effective: August 31, 2004 By Sandra Dilorio Thorn, General Counsel 1095 Avenue of the Americas, New York, N.Y. 10036 VERIZON NEW YORK INC. SUPPLEMENT NO. 4 PSC NY No. 10--COMMUNICATIONS By Order of the Public Service Commission, State of New York, dated September 22, 2004, in Case No. 04-C-0529, the following schedule has been suspended from September 24, 2004 up to and including January 21, 2005: PSC NY No. 10--COMMUNICATIONS Section 5 2nd Revised Pages 23, 188 3rd Revised Pages 44, 45, 46, 135 10th Revised Page 118 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Issued in compliance with Order of the Public Service Commission dated September 22, 2004 in Case No. 04-C- 0529. Issued: September 23, 2004 Effective: September 23, 2004 By Sandra Dilorio Thorn, General Counsel 1095 Avenue of the Americas, New York, N.Y. 10036 VERIZON NEW YORK INC. SUPPLEMENT NO. 5 PSC NY No. 10--COMMUNICATIONS The following tariff pages are hereby cancelled: PSC NY No. 10--COMMUNICATIONS Section 5 2nd Revised Pages 23, 188 3rd Revised Pages 44, 45, 46, 135 10th Revised Page 118 Supplement No.
    [Show full text]
  • Amends Each of the Following Interconnection
    AMENDMENT to INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENTS THIS AMENDMENT (this “Amendment”) amends each of the following Interconnection Agreements (the “Interconnection Agreements”): (a) each Interconnection Agreement listed in Appendix 2 to this Amendment; and, (b), any other Interconnection Agreement under Sections 251 and 252 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. §§ 251 and 252 (including, but not limited to, an interconnection agreement that is an adoption pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 252(i)) that became effective prior to October 16, 2006, or that becomes effective on or after October 16, 2006, between a Verizon Party and an NT Party for the Verizon Party’s Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier service area. As used in this Amendment, (a) the “Verizon Parties” include each of the Verizon companies listed in Appendix 1 (each individually “Verizon” or a “Verizon Party” and collectively “Verizon” or the “Verizon Parties”), and, (b) the “NT Parties” include each of the NT companies listed in Appendix 1 and each of their wireline affiliates (each individually “NT” or an “NT Party” and collectively “NT” or the “NT Parties”). Verizon and NT are hereinafter referred to, each individually, as a “Party” and, collectively, as the “Parties.” This Amendment shall become effective for each of the Interconnection Agreements listed in Appendix 2 as of October 16, 2006 and for any other Interconnection Agreement as of the later of October 16, 2006 or the date on which such Interconnection Agreement becomes effective. The term “affiliates,” as used in this Amendment, shall have the same meaning as under Rule 405 of the Rules promulgated pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
    [Show full text]
  • IN the UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT for the DISTRICT of DELAWARE ) in Re: ) Chapter 11 ) CHARMING CHARLIE HOLDINGS INC., Et Al.,1 ) Case No
    Case 17-12906-CSS Doc 171 Filed 12/21/17 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ) In re: ) Chapter 11 ) CHARMING CHARLIE HOLDINGS INC., et al.,1 ) Case No. 17-12906 (CSS) ) ) Debtors. ) (Jointly Administered) ) DEBTORS’ APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF AN ORDER AUTHORIZING THE RETENTION AND EMPLOYMENT OF KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP AND KIRKLAND & ELLIS INTERNATIONAL LLP AS ATTORNEYS FOR THE DEBTORS AND DEBTORS IN POSSESSION EFFECTIVE NUNC PRO TUNC TO THE PETITION DATE The above-captioned debtors and debtors in possession (collectively, the “Debtors”) file this application (this “Application”) for the entry of an order (the “Order”), substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, authorizing the Debtors to retain and employ Kirkland & Ellis LLP and Kirkland & Ellis International LLP (collectively, “Kirkland”) as their attorneys effective nunc pro tunc to the Petition Date (as defined herein). In support of this Application, the Debtors submit the declaration of Joshua A. Sussberg, the president of Joshua A. Sussberg, P.C., a partner of Kirkland & Ellis LLP, and a partner of Kirkland & Ellis International LLP (the “Sussberg Declaration”), which is attached hereto as Exhibit B and the declaration of Robert Adamek, the Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Charming Charlie Holdings Inc., which is attached hereto as Exhibit C (the “Adamek Declaration”). In further support of this Application, the Debtors respectfully state as follows. 1 The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases, along with the last four digits of each Debtor’s federal tax identification number, include: Charming Charlie Canada LLC (0693); Charming Charlie Holdings Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • STATE of NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT of TELEPHONE CORPORATIONS for the Period Ending DECEMBER 31, 2018
    STATE OF NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT OF TELEPHONE CORPORATIONS For the period ending DECEMBER 31, 2018 Instructions for this Tab: 1 Fill in your name and address below so that this information will carry to other parts of the spreadsheet. 2 If the respondent's name is long, the "Year ended December 31, 19__" may over pass the print range. This can be corrected by one of two methods: selecting a smaller font size on the specific sheet, or to delete some spaces on the combined string below. Please fill in the following: Respondent's exact legal name : VERIZON NEW YORK INC. Address line 1: 140 WEST STREET Address line 2: NEW YORK, NY 10007 Example For the period starting: JANUARY 1, 2018 January 1, 1995 For the period ending: DECEMBER 31, 2018 December 31,1995 Date due: May 30, 2019 March 31, 1995 For the period starting JANUARY 1, 2018 For the period ending DECEMBER 31, 2018 Year Ended DECEMBER 31, 2018 Annual Report of VERIZON NEW YORK INC. For the period ending DECEMBER 31, 2018 Annual Report of VERIZON NEW YORK INC. For the period ending DECEMBER 31, 2018 Annual Report of VERIZON NEW YORK INC. For the period ending DECEMBER 31, 2018 Annual Report of VERIZON NEW YORK INC. For the period ending DECEMBER 31, 2018 Annual Report of VERIZON NEW YORK INC. For the period ending DECEMBER 31, 2018 Annual Report of VERIZON NEW YORK INC. For the period ending DECEMBER 31, 2018 Annual Report of VERIZON NEW YORK INC. For the period ending DECEMBER 31, 2018 Please fill in the requested information on Rows 42, 43 and 44.
    [Show full text]
  • Telephone Verizon New York Inc. Section 1 2Nd Revised Revised Page 1
    State of Connecticut No. 10--Telephone Verizon New York Inc. Section 1 2nd Revised Revised Page 1 NETWORK COMBINATIONS 1. Definitions As used in this Tariff, the following terms shall have the meanings specified below in this Section 1.: 1.1 "Automatic Number Identification" or "ANI" means an in-band trunk network signaling parameter which refers to the number that can be transmitted through a telecommunications network identifying the billing number of the calling party or customer. 1.2 (D) (D) 1.3 "Calling Party Number" or "CPN" is a Common Channel Interoffice Signaling ("CCS") parameter which refers to the number transmitted on an out-of-band basis through the SS7 signaling network identifying the calling party or customer’s telephone number. 1.4 (a) "CCS" or “Hundred Call Seconds" means a telephone traffic engineering unit of measurement equaling one hundred (100) seconds of usage. (b) "CCS" or "Common Channel Interoffice Signaling" means the signaling system defined in Section 1.19 as follows. (c) Custom Calling Services - central office-based enhancements to the subscriber’s basic access line, including, but not limited to: Call Forwarding; Call Waiting; Speed Calling and Three-Way Calling. 1.5 "Central Office Switch" or “Switch" means a switch used to provide Telecommunications Services, including: Call Forwarding; Call Waiting; Speed Calling and Three-Way Calling. (a) "End Office Switches" which are used to terminate Customer station links for the purpose of interconnection to each other and to trunks; and (b) "Tandem Office Switches" which are used to connect and switch trunk circuits between and among other Central Office Switches.
    [Show full text]